This Story is About...

Share This Story On...

Dallas Mavericks owner Mark Cuban stands on stage before Cynthia Marshall, new interim CEO of the team, is introduced during a news conference, Monday, Feb. 26, 2018, in Dallas. Cuban has teased about the notion of running for president in 2020 in a campaign that could mirror President Donald Trumps blend of reality TV and politics. But Cuban's political career could be quickly derailed by sexual harassment and misconduct allegations within his team. (AP Photo/Ron Jenkins)

After an investigation, the Multnomah County District Attorney's Office determined there was insufficient evidence to press criminal charges against Cuban, concluding the "the allegation of the complainant is unfounded."

"It didn't happen," Cuban told The News when reached via email during Tuesday night's game at American Airlines Center.

In 2011, a woman complained to police that Cuban inappropriately touched her while she took a selfie photograph with him at a Portland, Ore., nightclub. The woman also submitted seven cellphone images as evidence to police, who deemed them inconclusive.

The allegation had not been previously reported.

Cuban forwarded the prosecutor's decline to prosecute memo, which supports his denial, to The News.

The case detective and the complainant both agree with the conclusion there is no corroborative evidence to support the complaint's allegation. The complainant has also consistently and repeatedly stated to police investigators she does not want to pursue this matter further. The complainant requested documentation and investigation of her complaint but has confirmed with me she will not participate in a criminal prosecution and agrees her claim cannot be proven.

This allegation surfaced two weeks after a Sports Illustrated report detailing a history of sexual harassment and improper actions in the workplace within the Dallas Mavericks organization.

Below is the prosecutor's memo in its entirety:

Multnomah County District Attorney's Office

Agency: Portland Police Bureau

Law Enforcement Case Person(s): McGuire, Brendan P

This case was submitted by the Portland Police Bureau for review of a potential criminal charge (sexual abuse in the second degree in violation of ORS 163.425) but is declined for prosecution because the complainant does not want to proceed and I have concluded no crime can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Moreover, upon review of all of the particular facts and circumstances in the case a fact finder could conclude the allegation of the complainant is unfounded. For as detailed below there is significant evidence that directly contradicts the allegation of the complainant.

The case detective and the complainant both agree with the conclusion there is no corroborative evidence to support the complaint's allegation. The complainant has also consistently and repeatedly stated to police investigators she does not want to pursue this matter further. The complainant requested documentation and investigation of her complaint but has confirmed with me she will not participate in a criminal prosecution and agrees her claim cannot be proven.

The complainant reported to police that she met Mark Cuban at a popular nightclub on April 23, 2011 sometime between midnight and 2:00am. At the time the club was crowded with people and many of them were taking photographs with Mr. Cuban due to his celebrity status. The complainant stated she was personally unfamiliar with Mr. Cuban but was strongly encouraged to have her photograph taken with him by her boyfriend, who knew Mr. Cuban was the billionaire owner of the Dallas Mavericks. The complainant eventually had her picture taken with Mr. Cuban and while doing so, according to the complainant, Mr. Cuban put his hand down the back of her pants and inserted his finger into her vagina without consent.

Investigators obtained a series of seven photographs taken with a cell phone camera showing the complainant and her female friend standing next to Mr. Cuban and smiling. The victim asserts the photographs were taken at the moment of the digital penetration, but nothing is revealed in the photographs which demonstrates a sexual assault or even inappropriate physical contact.

Investigators interviewed the complainant's boyfriend, female friend, employees and patrons at the nightclub as well as other persons who were with Mr. Cuban at the time but none stated they observed any actions by Mr. Cuban consistent with the victim's complaint.

Mr. Cuban voluntarily agreed to a tape recorded interview with the assigned case detective and repeatedly and adamantly denied the victim's allegation. Mr. Cuban stated he was at the nightclub on April 23, 2011 and had many photographs taken with various persons, but stated unequivocally that he never engaged in any inappropriate touching as described by the complainant.

Through an attorney, Mr. Cuban also provided two additional items of evidence: 1). A polygraph examination and 2). The opinion of two medical experts who state the reported sexual penetration is implausible under the circumstances.
Although the polygraph results would not be admissible in court, the use of a polygraph is a common investigative tool. The polygrapher in this case asked Mr. Cuban the following three questions:

While in the bar did you commit any sexual act?

While in the bar did you stick your finger in any woman's vagina?

In this case have you lied to your attorney in anyway?

To all three questions, Mr. Cuban answered "no" and was determined by the polygrapher to have no physiological reactions indicative of deception. It was therefore the opinion of the polygrapher that Mr. Cuban was answering all three questions truthfully.

Dr. Thomas Jarrett, Chairman of the Department of Urology and Dr. Tiffany Sotelo, Chief of the Pelvic Floor Center at George Washington University medical school in Washington, D.C. reviewed the allegations in this case and both provided written opinions that digital sexual penetration under the particular circumstances described by the complainant would be impossible.

In summary, there is no evidence to corroborate the complainant's statement and there is evidence contradicting the claim. The complainant does not want to proceed and the allegation cannot be proven beyond a reasonable doubt.